Transparency may be the most important trait of government, once the basics (democratic etc.) are founded. He's got to mean it, and we'll be watching hopefully but vigilantly.

Geese. Kind of makes you long for Cheney, eh? By the way is anyone actually sure he's left washington? My guess is that they'll have to "smoke" him out at his undisclosed location.
arack,

If Cheney refuses to leave office, the directions to his undisclosed location are written on the back of the mirror in the Lincoln Bedroom bathroom.

I think this is all great news. The only thing that bothers me is the assumption that all lobbying activities are suspect or negative. I work on behalf of children, but am a registered lobbyist. Does that mean that I wouldn't have valuable insight into public policy matters that affect families and kids?

Can an executive order undoing the Bush Presidential Records executive order be far away?

Obama chooses the pragmatic rubric. This could spell trouble.

Why?

Is there such a thing as a political act that makes everyone happy? Is Obama an "end of ideology" guy--a pure pragmatist, a “what works person? Take any of the acts that need doing in the coming days: bail out the banks or help foreclosed homeowners, more troops to Afghanistan or wind down, push Israel to end the settlements or keep on allowing them, encourage unions or keep Wal-mart happy, have affordable health care for all or let the insurance companies have their way, greater Pentagon spending for Empire building and control or scaling back for peace and diplomacy?

Many choices here. It's hard to see how a country or President can do it all, square the circle and make everyone happy.

Looking historically at Pragmatism (“whatever works, is likely true�) and its twin, Utilitarianism, (“doing the most good for the most people)� we get some workable notions. These seems doable but I don't think that is what the "end of ideology/Pragmatist/David Brooke" crowd wants when they want a “pragmatic president.� More likely they want to help Wall Street and not Main Street, privatize health care and social security and in general have a guns rather than butter economy. This is not the end of ideology –it’s more like you end your ideology but I’m keeping mine.

Does that mean that I wouldn't have valuable insight into public policy matters that affect families

No, but it probably means you couldn't head an agency that deals with toy safety. The reasoning would be that you were recently paid to advocate on one side of the issue and wouldn't be fair to competing interests.

Also, not to overbeat a dead and mutilated horse, but in this meeting, Biden gave the oath of office to the White House staff. He started out by pulling out a written version of the oath, and quipped that his memory was not as good as Roberts'. Obama did not seem amused.

Once again, great ideas, but how do we make sure they survive the next would-be tyrant?

It's not enough that Obama is willing to work under these rules, we need some help to make these the floor under which no president may sink no matter how much he (or his VP may wish to.

Once again, great ideas, but how do we make sure they survive the next would-be tyrant?

It's not enough that Obama is willing to work under these rules, we need some help to make these the floor under which no president may sink no matter how much he (or his VP may wish to.

Didn't the last 8 years just prove that if we elect a tyrant into office he can do almost whatever the hell he wants and he won't be punished for it? If the last 8 years didn't prove it, the coming year or so where they stand unprosecuted will.

If we aren't going to prosecute him, then we have to stop electing tyrants. If we can't do either of those things then we're going to get another one. I suspect we'll get another one eventually. (Of course if the administration and/or Congress has a change of heart and prosecutes Bush and his cronies for their crimes that could at least cause future tyrants to pause. But I have little hope of that happening - the Washington Post is going to do everything it can to make sure that no one goes on a "partisan witch hunt" against the criminals).

Obama did not seem amused. -Danp

Maybe he's pissed at Roberts for ruining his oath. Hopefully, Obama will keep that in mind when he sends new judges to work for Roberts.

Regarding the persistence of transparency, I think it's a pipe dream. Executive orders and laws can be undone; it is a given we will have to deal with a President overstepping and making power grabs in the future, just as we have in our past.

What would make it easier to maintain, though, is prosecuting any and all guilty of breaking the law while making those power grabs.

Ultimately, the last check on a President's power will be the people. If we want these policies to continue, then we need to continue to pay attention and elect good, competent leaders.

Maybe this is Obama's version of the Detective Columbo technique. He would pretend he had finished grilling a suspect but just as he was leaving he would turn back and say, "Just one more thing...". Always worked before, might as well give it a shot now.

"Information will not be withheld just because I say so. It will be withheld because a separate authority believes my request is well grounded in the Constitution."

Good -- but what "separate authority"? Devil's in the details. I can just see George Bush saying the same thing, and giving "authority" to individuals like Gonzales, who are not at all independent.

Obama did not seem amused. -Danp

Maybe he's pissed at Roberts for ruining his oath. -doubtful

More likely, given Obama's personality, background, and M.O., he doesn't see the need to publicly insult the man who sits in what has historically been the second, third, or fourth most important position in the US government.

Obama actually doesn't go out of his way to insult many people, if you think about it. That's part of why he's been able to mend fences so quickly with his rivals from the Presidential race - because he isn't big on taking the cheap shot and is willing to show some respect even to people who probably don't deserve it. I can't even recall Obama saying anything particularly mean about Sarah Palin - despite repeated promptings from the press and the incredibly obvious target she provided. He's a class act - and our culture has been devoid of class acts for so long we forget what it looks like (not just in politics, but in corporate executives, in news journalists, and definitely in our celebrities).

It's certainly a nice counterweight to The Smirker, who's tone of voice could make you think he was taking a cheap shot even when he was ostensibly making a compliment.

It's breathtaking what a difference having an adult in charge makes.

More likely, given Obama's personality, background, and M.O., he doesn't see the need to publicly insult the man NonyNony

That's my thinking. In fact, while he will joke about picking out a puppy, or Annie Oakley, he takes policy seriously. And he doesn't want to be seen as taking the oath lightly.

Let's see if Mr. Bullshit makes any effort to get rid of the 30 million illegal aliens.

Obama hasn't abolished the INS, jackass.

About illegration (I just made that up to save typing "ille ...ion" all the time) can't we just enforce checking for proper SSN or equivalent for W2s etc? IRS/SSA keeps track of everyone individually to decide how much SS payments they get, pace claims from rubes to the contrary no?

Obama hasn't abolished the INS

It would be difficult for Obama to abolish the INS, since Bush already did that.

It would be quite a trick for Obama to do these things and then sneakily act in the opposite way. He really means it.

Of course the first black President was bound to be exceptional; they've had to be twice as good just to have an equal shot. Still do, but it's changing.

Imposing and enforcing stricter lobbying rules on the whole Administration will help reduce external undesirable influence.

I suppose Dubya and even Bill didn't mind their buddies enjoying gifts and perks, but BO knows lobbyists will subvert his agenda, not to mention give Republicans a free ticket to trump up something.

It would be difficult for Obama to abolish the INS, since Bush already did that.

I stand corrected. But the Department of Homeland Security agencies that took over INS's responsibilities still exist and remain in charge of enforcing out immigration policy.